Talk:William Timmons (lobbyist)

Source for Lennon Comments

This is an op-ed source, which, by definition is an opinion piece that ignores facts. Moreover, it is published by a self proclaimed flagship of liberalism -- not exactly a neutral source (as evidenced by the erroneous assertion that Timmons was a member of the McCain team. This was just another attempt to use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign). Dicklyon explained that the writers assertion that Timmons was involved in the deportation efforts was based on the memo to Thurmond, but the letter to Thurmond indicates no such thing. This letter is completely uneventful in the life of Timmons, and the current version of this article has BLP and RS concerns. There simply is no good evidence to suggest Timmons played in a role in the INS deportation proceedings with Lennon, and writing as much is not editing in a conservative manner, which is required in a BLP. All we know is that Timmons signed a response to Thurmond informing him of the INS actions -- one of tens of thousands of letters signed by Timmons.I propose the Lennon connection be removed altogether, as done previously. Rtally3 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and also relying on the outside editors' comments that it is of extraordinarily marginal relevance at all to Timmons. Collect (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that one. Who are the editors who said this and where can I read their comments? Dlabtot (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA Rtally3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), what are you doing back? What do you mean by "by definition is an opinion piece that ignores facts", and why is Collect agreeing? This is a piece by the historian who obtained the documents, studied them, and wrote the book on them. Is it defined that historians "ignore the facts" when expressing an opinion related to their decades of study? Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he means that WP states that op-ed pieces are usable only for opinions properly cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect is correct. Dicklyon said himself that this is an op-ed article. The Nation article, cite #11, is what I am referring to. This particular article simply isn't reliable enough to use for such a controversial claim. Many users have expressed concerns in claiming that Timmons was involved in the Lennon deportation attempt, and BLP guidelines state that any questionable claim be removed without waiting for discussion. For these reasons I believe it is most prudent to remove the section for now, and continue to discuss here if appropriate. Rtally3 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question, Nixon Dirty Trickster on McCain Team is not an opinion piece, or an 'op-ed' and it is not presented as such in The Nation. It is presented as a piece of straight reportage. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? With lines like "McCain's selection of Timmons ties the candidate to Nixon's dirty tricks and enemies list" the motivation of the smear is evident: it's clearly an opinion piece, published in a partisan magazine. THF (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at WP:RSN. Your participation there is encouraged. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to judge it as an op-ed, but was perfectly OK treating it as such, since Jon Wiener wrote it and opened with what is best viewed as an opinion (in my opinion). And the headline writer pushed it a bit further by employing the term "dirty trickster"; I would generally suggest ignoring headlines, as they're designed to excite. However, now that I understand the tactic that THF is trying to use, of framing the paragraph as an opinion so that he can argue it should be thrown out, maybe I should change my mind; but, as I've said, we don't really need this opinion or that Nation article at all, as there are plenty of book sources that way predate Timmons's recent re-appearance on the political stage, that can be used for the base facts, as I had done before this came up on Feb 27 or so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct was that the whole thing should be removed, also. I was hoping the compromise I proposed, which simply recited indisputable facts neutrally, thus making it clear to a neutral reader that Wiener's claims were exaggerated, would resolve the issue. But given that Dicklyon refuses to compromise one iota from making this single memo the centerpiece of the article, and adding synthesis that falsely implies Timmons had a role larger than he had (up to and including litigating the release of the memos, which Timmons had nothing to do with), then I should return to my original position of removing the whole paragraph--I don't want to be in a position where I'm offering half the cookie and Lyon is insisting on the entire cookie, and third-parties come in and give him 90% of the cookie. The paragraph should be cut, since it reflects solely the factually inaccurate opinion of a single partisan historian. THF (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust that Dicklyon will provide evidence that this is an op-ed piece in accordance with his edits (the bio currently refers to the article as an op-ed piece). There is no question that The Nation operates from the far left and has a political agenda to disseminate, and that stating that Timmons was involved is extremely questionable based on the response from WP users. I don't believe there are any sources that have corroborated Timmons involvement. So far I count 3 in favor of removing the section, and 1 opposed. Frankly waiting for a consensus on this is gratuitous and is in contempt of WP BLP guidelines since this is undoubtedly a questionable claim. Rtally3 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It was THF who said above, "the fact that it was in op-ed in The Nation should be in the main text." And you never could count very well._WP:RPA This isn't even part of what we've been disputing about. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"And you never could count very well" should be redacted, Dick. Collect (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redacted? If RTally3 challenges it, I will either post this evidence of his past incorrect counts or strike it out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, you're making up baseless stuff. Where have I ever "refused to compromise one iota from making this single memo the centerpiece of the article"? This brief paragraph has never been the centerpiece, and I've added tons of other stuff and addressed every substantive issue that has come up. Where have I ever done anything that "falsely implies Timmons had a role larger than he had (up to and including litigating the release of the memos)"? Never. It was YOU who wanted the "factually inaccurate opinion of a single partisan historian" displayed in a way that, in your words "make it clear to a neutral reader that Wiener's claims were exaggerated". Sounds like a POV you're trying to push. Why don't we just remove the opinion instead, and say what he memos are about and how they were found, as I had done originally? Such as this version of Feb 27, though it's a bit longer? Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That version violates WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK as I have repeatedly described. I don't feel like playing Argument Clinic. Collect wanted it out; you wanted it in; I proposed a compromise; Collect agreed to compromise; Jayden agreed to compromise; you refused to compromise or suggest a single change to your version that addressed any of the concerns the other editors on the page had, and were blocked twice for your obstinacy in edit-warring to include the irrelevant FOIA lawsuit. If there isn't going to be a compromise, and there is going to be further escalation of this, my position is that it doesn't belong in at all under WP:WEIGHT: it's a single memo relaying facts as part of his role as legislative liaison, and there's no evidence he had any role as a decision-maker in the Lennon decision, and no evidence that the Lennon deportation attempt wasn't a good-faith application of the law reflecting a legitimate concern over violence, as Senator Thurmond stated and the Justice Department apparently agreed. THF (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you ever actually explained what you meant by that SYN and COATRACK stuff (at three or four times you've refused to repeat it, saying you've explained it before); it's hard to discuss, when we don't know what it is. As for the "compromise" you claimed you made, I never understood that, either. You say "Collect wanted it out; you wanted it in"; referring to what? Collect's comments were all about not being able to find in the sources that stuff that I was cited them for, which was I why after telling him page numbers didn't work I began to add quotes to the cites so it would be more clear that they supported. He always spoke in vacuous generalities; never said "this source doesn't support this statement", which I could have then fixed or clarified. Your "compromise" was to make the paragraph about the Wiener opinion instead of about the Timmons memos, which seemed bizarre to me until you recently explained the strategy behind it. Anyway, explain how recent versions conflict with WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK or quit claiming it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jon Wiener opinion was introduced in this third opinion from Jayen466. Neither THF nor Collect ever objected to it, as far as I can recall, and in fact fought to make it the lead sentence of the paragraph, as if the paragraph should be about the Wiener opinion instead of about Timmons and the memos. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved until 1 March. The only way we avoid WP:SYN is through the Wiener opinion, which is the only source claiming that any of this has anything to do with Timmons. I offered a compromise that gave you 75% of what you wanted, since you wanted it in, so long as it was put in the proper context without further editorializing and COATRACKing. You refused. I only offered the compromise because a stable version of the article that was slightly below perfect was better than a large fight, but you insisted on having a large fight to get your way no matter what, so if there is going to be the large fight you are insisting on, I want the optimal Platonic version of the article that omits the bogus allegation entirely, and we can let others decide how to mediate this.

Can you quote any part of what I added that you consider to be "editorializing" or "bogus allegation"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And why keep repeating "only source claiming that any of this has anything to do with Timmons" when the other sources are plainly cited and even quoted already? That was Collect's m.o., which is why I added the quotes (some may have been taken out by now). Some refer to him as "the assistnat to the president" in the sentence quoted, and as Bill Timmons elsewhere, or say the memo was sent "to the White House" and show it with his name on it; none fail to mention his name in connection with the memos. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a third opinion (Jayden's); you asked for a fourth opinion (mine); you asked for an RFC, and the fifth and sixth opinions refused to give you what you wanted; then you WP:FORUM-shopped for another mediator. THF (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't count, too?_WP:RPA I implemented Jayen's suggestion to cite the opinion of Timmons's central role; you supported that. The opinion from User_talk:Jezhotwells#William_Timmons was useful, even though you prompted him to find a problem when you were mistaken about which memo was published in the Rolling Stone. I have no idea what other opinions you're citing. I didn't forum shop for anything; if you think I did, post a diff. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is too much bizarre logic and arguing over minutia to even comment on. The bottom line is that this is not a tabloid, and the decision to include any controversial material needs to be done judiciously. Anything questionable shouldn't be added at all. I am confident this will be removed, just as Dicklyons attempts to connect Timmons to Saddam Hussein were. Re: the decision to remove the section on the grounds that the source isn't reliable and the subsequent count -- THF and Collect have clearly agreed with me within this section. That equals 3 people. I assume that Dicklyon thinks that it should remain. That equals 1 person. Therefore, I have count of 3-1 in favor of removing the section due to reliability concerns. Is that incorrect? Rtally3 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't take votes or count noses to resolve disagreements at Wikipedia. If you want to make an argument that the Nation article is not reliable, you should do so at the notice at RSN. Dlabtot (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted on the RS board. Re: the WP guidelines: voting is not forbidden. I understand that a consensus is preferably obtained through discussion to the point of agreement, but that doesn't seem viable here. Perhaps it will work out on the RS board. Rtally3 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What point are you seeking to resolve there? You're the only one who has a problem with that source. But personally I think the article was better before we introduced it, reporting instead only facts backed up by sources that predate the opinion and the 2008 electoral politics that apparently provoked its publication. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone is "the only one" does not make that claim true. Nor does an opinion held by one person lose or gain weight thereby. Collect (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Collect and THF don't have a problem with the source? What are you basing that on? Seems to me that the first two responses in this section clearly express concerns. And I don't believe I got a response on the count issue (?). Where exactly did I miscount? Rtally3 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither THF nor Collect ever removed the Wiener source, nor suggested removing it (or if I'm wrong, point it out); around Feb 28 Collect did vandalize the citations in a way that suggested he disagreed with the sources, however. And you agreed with Collect when he agreed with me saying "I believe he means that WP states that op-ed pieces are usable only for opinions properly cited as opinions." Again, no suggestion that we're using it improperly, since it's presented as an attributed opinion. Anyway, it remains unclear what you were counting, but at least I, DGG, Jezhotwells, and Dlabtot seem to be OK with the recent versions by DGG and/or myself. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As you stated, my disputes are new. I don't see DGG, Jezhotwells, or Dlabtot disagreeing with any points I've made. And I already pointed out that THF and Collects first posts in this section clearly state that they think the section should be cut. Please read them and let me know if I somehow miscounted, as you claim so disparagingly. Rtally3 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the article is not an op-ed, but is a source of factual reporting. Certainly The Nation has a liberal bias, (all publications have biases), but that doesn't prevent it from reporting facts as facts. You may not like that source -- you may think it's opinions and conclusions are reprehensible -- but that doesn't make it unreliable in its factual reporting. You can't remove a source just because you don't like its political agenda. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nation is more biased than other news sources. Most people would suggest Fox to be on the right, and CNN to be on the left, but we don't see such a polarized divide to the point where the networks are claiming a flagship position for one of the parties, as The Nation has done. It is true that WP users shouldn't remove a source based on whether its beliefs comport with ours, but it is also true that sources in a BLP need to be somewhat neutral, and The Nation is no where close to being neutral. Rtally3 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we dislike it because it has specific false statements making it less than reliable? Such as the assertion that McCain chose Timmons? And with one fact (at least) wrong - we are to assert it is actually right because "it is in an RS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Not sure what you are talking about. Are you actually claiming that because The Nation, like Time Magazine and Bloomberg, reported that McCain chose Timmons to head his transition team, therefore they are an 'unreliable' source? Dlabtot (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nation and Bloomberg articles incorrectly reported that Timmons was on the team, and the Time and LA Times articles correctly reported that Timmons was tapped for transition documentation, and that was the extent of his role. Rtally3 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with those characterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So then you must believe the Time and LA Times articles are inaccurate. Why? You believe that McCain hired a lobbyist to head his transition planning, and not John Lehman?Rtally3 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Many (most) relialbe sources sometimes include mistakes, or false statements, along with facts and opinions. That is not in itself a reason to disregard the source, though of course we should strive to use the most accurate sources we can find, and to not report statements that have been unequivocably shown to be incorrect. In the present case, I still think the question of whether it's an "op ed" is a red herring; it's a news report that clearly contained slanted interpretations that are best reported simply as the opinion of the author. Wiener's observation that Timmons's role in the Lennon deportation attempt was "central" seems like more of an opinion than a fact. But it's not really that important to reporting the facts, so I'm happy to use it or drop it, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- articles which have non-facts in them are less reliable. The articles based on the Eisenstadt stuff are totally unusable as the hoax reduced the level of confidence in the entire rest of the article. Collect (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the first mention of that name in relation to this article. What are you referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What is a 'non-fact'? I don't believe that is a standard English term. What does it mean? And how does your response relate to my question about Bloomberg and Time Magazine? Dlabtot (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Posit a Time article using Martin Eisenstadt as a source. Time is "generally reliable" but that artcle, perforce, is not. Once a linchpin claim in an article is disproven, the rest of the article is on shaky ground. See also "unfact." Or [1] ... any other cites needed or is Webster good enough? Frequently used in discussions about subjunctive usage in English. Though I had hoped the use in context was clear. Collect (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the fault is no doubt mine, but I have no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that the Nation was unreliable because they reported the same thing that Time and Bloomberg did. Then you started using the term 'non-fact' - in relation to what, I don't know. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem removing The Nation reference? If not, then the question is, is signing the letter to Thurmond noteworthy without any evidence that Timmons did anything other than signing the letter? I would suggest not, and that the section be removed altogether. Rtally3 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to propose coherent reason why it should be removed, first. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why The Nation reference should be removed, or the Lennon section altogether? I think the reasons for removing The Nation reference are pretty clear above (even when you assume that this is not technically an op-ed piece), so I'll just explain the reason for removing the whole section. There is no proof that Timmons played a role in the deportation attempts, so what we're left with is the fact that he signed a memo to a Senator -- one of thousands of letters Timmons signed leaving the White House during his tenure as Director of Legislative Affairs. Is this significant enough to include in the written history of a man's life? I would suggest not. The editing of the Lennon piece has turned into a vicious circle. Timmons role is exaggerated, corrected/removed, then exaggerated again in order to seem worthy of inclusion. Rtally3 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence in support of the fact that Timmons played the role of receiving a memo and a month later sending back a reply. That's all we need to say about his role, but we need to say a few words about the memos, what event in history they were a part of, why we know about them, and the like. They're notable enough to have been reproduced in full in multiple books and magazines, so it's hard to imagine a coherent reason to exclude discussion of them from the wikipedia article on the guy who received and sent them. In addition we've got the opinion of the historian who studied them and the rest of the Lennon papers, that Timmons played a central role; I'm OK leaving out that scholarly opinion, but leaving it out can't be a reason to not cover the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The memo is published because it reveals Strom Thurmonds opinion on an interesting issue. If you take the same scenario, and replace Strom Thurmond with constituent John Doe from Tennessee, none of us would know about the memo, even though Timmons role is exactly the same. The memo might be germane to the bio of Strom Thurmond, but not Timmons. It was a menial office task. Rtally3 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems likely. So what? And if Jon Wiener hadn't filed an FOIA request, we wouldn't know Timmons had written back to Thurmond either. But he did; so we do. The memos are between Thurmond and Timmons and they are famous. Do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This memo is definitely not "famous", and we knew about the memo before the Weiner article surfaced. "So what" is exactly what readers will think when they read that Timmons signed a memo to a Senator. This memo is not even mentioned on the Strom Thumond bio, it definitely doesn't need to mentioned here. Rtally3 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not famous? Have you tried a book search? Or a web search? Yes "we knew about the memo before the Weiner article surfaced" because of these many books; and one side of the transaction was hinted at in the 1975 pub in Rolling Stone of the memo from Thurmond to Mitchell, too. We could mention these also in the Thurmond bio, but he's actually pretty well known for lots of other stuff, while with Timmons the pickings are pretty slim. Actually, let's do add a bit on it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) the rationale is that since very little has been written on Timmons that it is therefore right to give undue weight to trivial mentions as though they were of great importance? Has it occured to you that "the pickings are pretty slim" precisely because Timmons was not important? Sorry -- that argument goes well against WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was pretty unimportant; I think I've said as much. What I don't understand is why there's such resistance to mentioning the few things for which he has been mentioned in book. It was clear from the beginning that you a knee-jerk reaction mentioning anything that would cast him in a less than flattering light; you kept arguing things like "none of the sources make any connection between these memos and the 1972 election." I addressed all your issues by providing detailed source pages and quotes for everything mentioned in the article. All it said was that he got this memo and responded thus, and here's what they were about and here's how we know about them. It's not SYN or COATRACK as THF keeps saying, just a report of what I found in books about Timmons, like the rest of the article (most of which I found and added, and most of which you fought for unknown reasons). Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to allege policy violation please say what policy, and even say why you think it's being violated (insted of just naming policies and not saying anything useful like THF does). Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with collect re: giving the Lennon memo undue weight because there isn't that much to report on. The Lennon memo should be looked at independently and the decision to include or exclude it should have nothing to do with the amount of information already in the bio. And just because this memo is in books does not make it "famous". Timmons is in all kind of publications, but I don't think most people would consider him famous -- I bet 95% of the population has never even heard of him, much less the memo. As far as the accusation that certain people are just trying to polish up this bio, I can see where that perspective is coming from, but if there was any well sourced information that could easily be corroborated I don't think you would run into resistance. There simply isn't any evidence that he lobbied on behalf of Hussein or tried to get Lennon deported, and the attempts to make those connections are nothing but smear jobs that should be left to the spineless media. Rtally3 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the concerns expressed on this page ascertain that the Lennon connection is questionable, and according to WP BLP policies questionable material should be removed immediately, without even having a discussion. We have had a discussion, however, in the interest of avoiding any heavy handed motions. I think it's time to request that the Lennon section be removed, and the discussions can continue here if need be. Please list any concerns/thoughts, otherwise I plan on proceeding with the request. Rtally3 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lennon break 1

You're making some big leaps here about how things worked in the Nixon White House, but all we can report is what's in sources. I am not fighting to smear Timmons. I joined this page because it was locked up in disputes about sources like Huffington Post and I noticed that there were things in books not yet mentioned, so we ought to cover that stuff from reliable sources in preference to modern political stuff. That's the direction I've taken it. Compare it what it was back in December and you'll see. And I had to fight RTally3 and Collect the whole way, and now you. Timmons is nobody to me; I just don't like abandon an article to a cabal of such blatantly biased editors. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased editors? You won't run into any resistance if you have a reliable source reporting something bad about Timmons. The idea that he lobbied for Hussein is absolutely ridiculous, and there's no evidence that he tried to get Lennon deported. Those were blatant smear jobs in an attempt use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign. The Huffington Post and The Nation? Are you serious? If anything, we are keeping the biased bologna OUT of the biography. Rtally3 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As for mentioning SYN and COATRACK, that's what I'd call TEDIOUS. You refuse to back them up with any discussion, just keep throwing them out as if that's enough to make some point. I've read those, and can't see how they apply to this small paragraph that has no bias subject, advances no POV, and just reports the facts from the cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have backed them up all over the place. I really don't feel the need to every time I post. The Lennon connection needs to be removed, as it is questionable, and questionable material needs to be removed from BLP's immediately. YOU might not think it is questionable, but it is clear based on the responses from users that it is. Rtally3 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A single diff to some backup would be enough for us to know what you're referring to. As to "questionable", per what policy? A set of facts from realiable sources, presented without interpretation, is generally considered to be acceptable in a BLP unless the facts themselves are questionable; are you saying some of the facts stated are questionable? Specifics, please. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously enjoy getting the goat of other editors and _WP:RPA I'm not playing this game much longer. If you to re-read some postings, get to it and stop this nonsense. All that needs to be said is that one man working for a publication that promotes itself as the flagship of a particular political party has an opinion that a member of the opposite party played a "central role" in the Lennon deportation attempts and backs it up with no concrete evidence. That is questionable material to include, as other editors have stated, and such material should not be included without a consensus. BLP guidelines state that the material be removed immediately without discussion. Rtally3 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rtally3, before you came back, we had complete concensus on the inclusion of the opinion of Jon Wiener; Jayen suggested it; I added it; THF made it the topic sentence; Collect reverted to THF's version more than once. But if it's a problem, I'm happy to take it out. We can go back to the Feb. 27 version, take out the ACLU bit, and get to a version that states the facts about the memos' existence, what they were a part of, and how they were found, without including any opinions. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without any evidence that Timmons played a role in the deportation attempts, we are just left with the fact that he signed a memo. Such a menial office task is completely uneventful in the life of Timmons -- there is plenty of good information already there, and including this minutia subverts the biography. Rtally3 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the way to avoid edit-wars and bullying tactics (especially the heavyhanded wikilawyer mumbojumbo being thrust at a less experienced editor without much helpful explanation) is to request some informal mediation. Dicklyon, this could possibly result in your suggestions being deemed invalid by a general consensus of other editors, and you might have to accept a compromise which totally favors their positions simply for the sake of treading carefully around the strict WP:BLP requirements, but you would at least be able to have the discussion without being Personally Attacked, and even if your viewpoint is in the Minority, it can't be totally dismissed without being respected in the Dispute Resolution process. Since you are absolutely definitely not in a position of just you against the rest of the whole world (and i'm seething at such OUTRAGEOUSLY overt attempts to force an end to discussion when an editor has legitimate concerns!) i would recommend going somewhere down the Mediation route. It won't guarantee happiness, but it will make people treat you with a lot more CIVILity. I have a feeling that we often run into situations similar to a "tyranny of the majority", but one of the good things about Wikipedia is we have very clear policies which protect your right to discuss legitimate edits and reasonable Good Faith actions without being bullied. Hope that helps! ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a less experienced editor; I have plenty of experience with entrenched opponents, dispute resolution processes, up through getting people banned indefinitely; but that doesn't mean I'm good at it or like it, as it's always stressful to be in a failure to communicate. And the wikilawyer THF (who in real life in a lawyer for a big conservative organization, and who worked for the McCain campaign, since you're new here) has turned me down flat and whined some more when I asked him to reconsider. I'm perfectly willing to listen to new opinions, and in fact have gotten at least you, DGG, Jezhotwells, Dlabtot, vaguely Quadell, and in some respects even Jayen (who never answers me when I respond to his stated points) to express support for my position that way. I'm not afraid of reaching a consensus, but it's hard when THF and Rtally3 refuse to get specific about objections such as SYN and COATRACK in THF's case and "questionable" in Rtally3's case, and when Jayen won't acknowledge or respond to my responses to his assertions; he says we shouldn't use any sources that don't mention Timmons in connection with the Lennon deportation attempt memos; I'm OK with that, and if he can show me such a source, I'll happily remove it. That the kind of specific objection that's easy to address (but I don't think he'll find such a source cited in my version, as I've tried to tell him). Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

THF, why don't you try framing an RfC this time? You could show the version that you believe has SYN and COATRACK problems, and see if you can get comments from others on whether that's so or not. Last time people were OK with it, but maybe you'll get lucky. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That I refuse to repeat the same points over and over and over and over means that I am being courteous, not that I "refuse to discuss." My point is made, and hasn't been rebutted once. There is no leap: I get all of my information from the papers themselves. THF (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That I ask over and over and over is just to underscore that if you EVER did say how your complaints relate to these policies, I missed it and you refuse to point it out via a diff or repeat it; say SYN and COATRACK is not enough; you need to say what you mean by it; how about just a link to where you said once? Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: on the John Lennon deportation attempt memos

Does the recent version of the paragraph on the memos between Thurmond and Timmons violate WP:SYN or WP:COATRACK? If so, how, and how would you suggest fixing? This version:

In 1972, Senator Strom Thurmond sent Timmons an official memo suggesting that John Lennon be deported, because of his support of the New Left, and fears that Lennon and his friends would disrupt the upcoming Republican National Convention and Nixon re-election campaign. A month later, Timmons informed Thurmond that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. In an op-ed in The Nation, historian Jon Wiener, who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request, said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon."

involved editors

• Yes. The paragraph falsely implies the memo was of great importance, but it is important to realize that the "Lennon Papers" in question consisted of several dozen memos and documents: the only one of these that was written by Timmons was a two-sentence note answering the inquiry of a senator who had asked about the status of Lennon. There is no evidence in any of the other Lennon Papers that Timmons had any role in decision-making (that would have been Attorney General Mitchell or Mitchell's underlings); indeed, there is no evidence that Timmons had any more of a role in the matter than the interns who acted as messenger-boys delivering Thurmond's memo. That's how bureaucracies work: Thurmond makes an inquiry to the legislative liaison in the White House, the liaison funnels the inquiry to the DOJ liaison, the DOJ liaison funnels the inquiry to the DOJ decisionmaker; the DOJ decisionmaker makes (or, in this case, has already made) a decision; the DOJ decisionmaker reports back to his liaison, who reports back to the legislative liaison; the liaison then reports back to the senator. If this had been done in the age of e-mail, Timmons's role would have consisted of hitting the "forward" button and typing "FYI" twice--which would have been redundant, because Thurmond also sent the same memo to Mitchell!. How is any of this biographically notable? Moreover:

1. If you read the first sentence of Timmons's memo, it shows that the Thurmond inquiry was superfluous to the actual deportation attempt. Since the only evidence connecting Timmons is the single exchange between him and Thurmond--who cares? The incident is not mentioned in the article of Thurmond, who clearly had a bigger role than Timmons in this matter. It's not mentioned in the Mitchell article or the Nixon administration article. It's barely mentioned in the Lennon article. Why hang it on Timmons? Why is this even in the article?
2. "official memo" is an attempt to give the incident more weight than it has. What's an unofficial memo?
3. "Nixon re-election campaign" is POV and SYN. Not in the Thurmond memo or Timmons response.
4. The quotes in the footnotes are coatracks largely irrelevant to Timmons or the underlying memos.
5. "who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request" is SYN and COATRACK. The FOIA request is utterly irrelevant to Timmons, and simply an excuse to COATRACK sources that have nothing to do with Timmons.
6. "Another copy of the memo, from Thurmond to attorney general John Mitchell, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums [sic]", had been made public in 1975" -- Who cares? What does this have to do with Timmons?
7. None of the sources -- except a partisan op-ed written in 2008 to smear John McCain by second-hand association with Nixon -- connect Timmons as having a major role in the deportation attempt.
8. The quoted Wiener opinion is a questionable source because of the facts above, and the context and motivation of his op-ed, which states an opinion absent from his longer book, written years earlier with the same facts in hand. Severe BLP problem. -- THF (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Since THF is the editor who has said so, let's examine what he says:

• Re SYN: See his points 3 and 5 above. The fact that these memos were about the upcoming election campaign is in the cited source that is talking about the memos (the one to Timmons being referred to as "to the White House", since Timmons wasn't much known) and in ever other source about the memos, since the memos wouldn't make a lot of sense if their context weren't mentioned. Number 5 is also in the cited source. An accusation of WP:SYN would seem to require a showing some sentence or paragraph was made in violation of the instruction "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Yet no such combining of sources, not any such "conclusion" has ever been pointed out, so it's hard to address.
• Re COATRACK: the quotes in the footnote were to help the editor who had trouble finding where the cited book page supported the statement; this seems to be the first time anyone has objected to them. Point 5 above says that ""who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request", yet it's had to see how that relates to WP:COATRACK, which says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." Where is a "bias subject"? This article is about Timmons, and this paragraph is about the memos he received and sent, which are widely published in books and magazines since they are seen as a significant representation of the Nixon attempt to deport Lennon.

That's all it is. I won't address THF's other points here, as they're outside the scope of the RfC. I'll be happy to discuss them in a new section or a new RfC. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes for the umpteenth time it seems --- there is no showing of any connection between Lennon and Timmons other than a short memo which does not show any other connection at all. Collect (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just the memos connect them. But did you have any comments on SYN and COATRACK, per the RfC? Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One part: Timmons wrote a memo with Lennon's name in it. The memo was written to Thurmond. Therefore Thurmoin's rationale for his memo is relevant to Timmons. (SYN) Therefore Timmons memo is relevant to seeking Lennon's deportation. (SYN) Therefore the FOIA action to get the memos is relevant to Timmons (SYN) Therefore the upcoming election campaign was relevant to Timmons (SYN) Therefore Weiner is an expert relative to Timmons because he was the named plaintiff in the FOIA suit (SYN). Four clear cases. Need more? Collect (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So your interpretation of "SYN" is in finding things to be "relevant"? I didn't see that there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. My intrerpretation of SYN is in WP:SYN you take two facts and link them when there is nothing in the source to suggest the link is actually there. That is SYN. One source says A, another says B, and you leap to A and B are both true therefore if A and B imply C, then C must be true. It is not. Collect (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SYN is about combining sources to "advance a position" or "reach a conclusion". You haven't identified any position or conclusion, since indeed the text we're discussing does not advance any position or any conclusion; it's nothing but facts; there's nothing in SYN to say you can't put multiple facts into the same paragraph. If you're saying the "position" being advanced is that this stuff is relevant to the bio, that's not SYN, but a relevance issue, which is the way you argued originally, but didn't get much agreement on. It's relevant because it's one of things you find in a lot of books and magazines when you search for William Timmons. If I've got this wrong, please tell me at least one example of what A, B, and C are per your analysis, as this is exactly what I've been trying to find out. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Which is exactly and precisely what you are seeking to do. Collect (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that's what you're saying; so why can't you point out what conclusion is being reached? I thought I only reported simple facts; am I wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes as per THF. Also, I understood the Nation article to say that "The Thurmond-Timmons documents were first published in Rolling Stone, July 31, 1975", making Wiener's FOIA request some years later immaterial to the Timmons memo, which is the one tenuous thing that connects Timmons to the whole thing in the first place. (Sorry if you have discussed this further since then; I haven't read everything above, but thought I'd mention this again just in case.) Jayen466 04:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That misunderstanding has been addressed above. The memo published in the Rolling Stone was the Thurmond-Mitchell memo; Timmon's reply wasn't known until after the FOIA request was partially fulfilled. And since THF still hasn't said what aspects of SYN and COATRACK he sees being violated, your "per THF" is equally unhelpful; give us something we can address? Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, this is an RFC. You've made your argument once. You don't need leave a comment every time someone else reiterates their position, much less violate WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK by falsely misrepresenting the arguments of others as you have repeatedly done in every single comment you have left in this RFC. Make one statement and let other speak without being harangued. You know darn well what issues are going to be addressed, because this is the fifth iteration of the same debate you've forced to happen for several weeks because you won't accept WP:CONSENSUS or Wikipedia policy on synthesis. THF (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to elicit comments relevant to the RfC question (and, in this case to bring him up to date on a point that he was behind on). Furthermore, I've repeatedly asked for some kind of explanation of what you mean by "is SYN", yet you refuse to say. You jump in with a ton of non-responsive text when we're seeking comments from fresh eyes, and then chide me. It's not helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

outside editors

I'd like to point out that COATRACK is only an essay and is not an official policy. There is no way to "violate" COATRACK because it's only a general principle, it's not a rule. And in a situation where there are numerous Reliable Sources which offer Verifiable information pertaining directly to the contentious issue, it's rather difficult to insist absolutely that the inclusion of some of that information is somehow "Undue Weight", and thus the whole Coatrack issue is kind of superfluous anyway. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; since it's an essay that we all agree with (I think), that won't change how we look at it. Same with policy WP:SYN; we all agree with "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

. As for SYN, 1/Thurmond sent him a menu about X. 2/He told Thurmond he had initiating the process for X which to me implies 3/He was involved with facilitating the process to do X. That's not SYN. It's common sense. Actually, the real question is whether he was a messenger boy or a policy maker in this instance, and I doubt we'll ever know. But we're stating that Weiner said he was in a central role, with a good source. . What would be SYN? to say that Weiner was an enthusiastic support of Nixon, yes. to assign him motives, yes. to say that he had been waiting for Thurmond do do this all along, yes. But to repeat the sequence of facts, and give the opinion of an authority? no. The question of whether the whole thing is significant. Lennon was such a public personality, and the effort to deport him so typical of the Nixon administration and so well know at the time and remembered later, that, yes,it makes appropriate content. Now, if I were to say in the article that it was typical of thurmond and of Nixon, and of the role Timmons customarily played, that would be SYN and OR. But the paragraph doesn't say that. Those who think it does are interpreting it for themselves. Perfectly reasonable paragraph, and anyone who'd object is working from some assumptions that I do not understand. DGG (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I demur. The fact is that Thurmons sent a memo. Timmons' memo does not say Timmons did anything at all, only that INS had goiven a deportation order. Timmons did not say he was "initiating" anything at all. Hence it is a leap to assert such. Any version which seeks to ascertain Thurmond's motives is, at best, totally tangential to Timmons. And any connection of the FOIA request to Timmons is SYN ... A. Weiner discovered memos in FOIA request. B. Timmons wrote one of the memos. C. The memos were kept secret for some reason. Therefore D. Timmons was involved in some way in having them secret -- and E. Timmons was therefore a "central figure" in have the deportation order. The real problem is that there is absolutely no reason to think Timmons initiated the deportation order, that he had anything, in fact, to do with the deportation order and (noting the bccs) that Timmons viewed the memo as anything more than a courtesy to the Senator. Harlington Wood was Assistant Attorney General, and why not say he was the culprit, for example? Tom Korologos was apparently a minor functionary -- if you use bcc as your link. So SYN was there in the prior version (and a lot more in an earlier one). Collect (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, that's your personal interpretation. You have no right to have factual material which other people may possibly read as contradicting your interpretation, or informed people's interpretations published in reliable sources but that are different from yours, omitted from Wikipedia, because that's what you're trying to do. I don't think there's more to be said. I neither know nor care about Timmons as an individual. You apparently care, if not necessarily know. You have an obvious COI and should not be editing this article. DGG (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I not only have no COI, I have never met Timmons or anyone else mentioned in te article. I came here because of a noticeboard listing this article. I fear you might have misread my point that in order to state a fact in a WP article, we must find it stated as a fact in an RS. Dick is the one who is making the SYN. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i think this proposed paragraph is fine. all of the objections regarding synth, etc, seem to be misplaced and based on interpreting the primary sources. using the primary sources and then making your own interpretation about intent is original research. using reliable secondary sources (like The Nation) who draw conclusions, and citing them properly, is not. untwirl(talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about mediation then

THF, how about formal or informal mediation, since you don't like the scope of my RfC? And the rest of you guys? If we agree in principle, we can start the process; I'll be happy to do it, or let one of you start it up. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've refused every compromise offered here, ignored WP:CONSENSUS, repeatedly personally attacked me, refused to address the issues I've raised (instead wasting time with multiple RFCs that violate WP:RFC by failing to state the actual issue), and been blocked twice for edit-warring to get your coatracked way. I'm not wasting more time on this in mediation so you can relitigate a BATTLE you've lost four times. The problem here is your violation of WP:TEDIOUS and WP:FORUM. THF (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary; before you showed up I was involved in lots of compromises. But I don't litigate, as I'm not an attorney; and a mediation is not a trial, just a process to help us talk to and listen to each other. I'm having trouble getting any understanding of why you keep saying SYN and COATRACK; a mediator might be able to draw you out and interpret to me. And maybe also get you to hear my position. Declining mediation cuts off an opportunity to make progress, so please reconsider. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I listed nine problems with your proposed edit, every other involved editor agrees with me, and no one else has addressed any of my points. THF (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your points. If you don't wish to follow ordinary Dispute Resolution processes here, then i suggest you make some kind of request for Mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs)

I made a lengthy comment at 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC), and, no you did not respond to it, other than to say that COATRACK was just an essay. Since my argument went far beyond the COATRACK problem, that's not "addressing my points." THF (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'd be happy to discuss those, just not to have my request for comment on SYN and COATRACK allegations hijacked by them. The fact that you got no comments on them in that RfC can hardly be taken as evidence that "every other involved editor agrees with me," and even if so, the point was to get some uninvolved editors to comment (isn't that what an RfC is for?). On particulars like your complaint about "official memo", that was a compromised after you rejected the "secret memo" as it says in the first cited source and "confidential memo" that I think was from another source; "official" just means it was on the letterhead of the office, as opposed to "personal", which is what the copy to Mitchell was marked. But I'm flexible on this; no need to take up RfC space on it. Similarly for lots of other issues; as you know, I've suggested taking out the Wiener opinion altogether, but Jayen had proposed it and you've fought to keep it as the topic sentence of the paragraph. So don't blame me for that one. SImilarly, if we talk about each point, we can probably come to some agreements, instead you just always reverting to the "compromise" that you wrote after getting me blocked. I've tried quite a few variations since then, but unless I can understand the objection it's hard to work toward a version you can accept. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:HOUNDing. I've stated my position multiple times and you've refused to address it. THF (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the unCIVIL Personal Attacks. I've used StrikeThrough all over this TalkPage because nobody has taken the time to remove their Personal Attacks. That goes for lots of editors, not just any one or two in particular. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your position on SYN and COATRACK has been stated multiple times; but never actually explained, as far as I can tell; for example, as Collect points out, one can explain SYN by saying what sourced facts A and B are being interpreted to conclude some C. What are A, B, and C in your position? Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And as to WP:HOUNDING, it says

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

I'm sorry if you feel that my request to mediate is threatening or intimidating, or undermines or frightens you. It seems unlikely that it is going to discourage you from editing Wikipedia, though. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for once again misrepresenting the argument. It is harassing to repeatedly relitigate an issue where consensus was against you, put an eight-hour time-limit overnight for responding to repetitive arguments before claiming that "I am not responding," to misrepresent my argument at multiple places on the talk-page to force me to repeat myself, to personally attack me, etc. So, yes, that is a pattern of offensive behavior to force me to waste my time and discourage me from productive editing. THF (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Consensus is, and has been, clear for some time now Dick. Exceedingly clear. Vitreously clear. Crystal clear. And your multiplicitous and duplicative iteration of the same arguments over and over without end is verging (barely?) on tenedentiousness. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't rise to the flamebait, Dicklyon. They're not worth it. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Above editor has never edited on any topic remotely related to Timmons. Unless you count his apparent tracking of me. Collect (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm watching another editor, because i've been seeing how you and THF work as a team to bully people, and this TalkPage here is a perfect example. You might want to redact your Personal Attacks in the next few minutes before i bring this over to WQA and ANI. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 11:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please redact your baseless personal attack on me, which appears to be retaliation for my role in documenting your incivility. User talk:Dicklyon shows very nicely which two editors on this page are "working as a team." THF (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering how much THF and I disagree, that would be some sort of circus, right? I did not make any personal attacks, so I do not know what you are asking me to redact. Might you elucidate? Collect (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your Personal Attacks on the other Mediation page which is supposedly privileged. I'm referring to THF's three Personal Attacks on this page which i StruckThrough and he then unStruck. I'm also thinking about a recent two-part question which was asked of you on VirtualSteve's TalkPage; interestingly, you never answered him. I wouldn't normally consider it any of my business, except you are now intentionally flamebaiting me and other editors this morning. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

Proposed new version

Responding to a general feeling (at least by me and Rtally3 and THF) that it wasn't a good idea to feature the opinion that Timmons was "central" to the Lennon deportation attempt, I've taken out that information and that recent left-leaning source entirely. And lacking clear info at what stage of Wiener's FOIA battle got the release of these two memos, I've taken out the bit about the ACLU lawsuit that got the rest of the Lennon papers that his opinion reflects, which we had in the last version before the Wiener opinion was added. So we're back to a version with no opinions, just facts. And no "SYN" (or if I'm wrong point out what pair of sourced facts A and B are being used to reach some conclusion C, in which case I will remove C or cite a single source that says it, so we don't need to argue about SYN any more).

Here:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security Subcommitte associated Lennon with the Chicago Seven and noted that "This group has been strong advocates of the program to 'dump Nixon'." Thurmond told Timmons that "many headaches would be avoided if appropriate action were taken." Timmons responded to Thurmond on March 6, 1972, indicating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was documented after these memos were discovered by a Freedom of Information Act request by Jon Wiener.

This is even worse. Stop it. As you now finally acknowledge, this has nothing to do with Timmons, and doesn't belong in the Timmons article. If the subject fascinates you so much, create an article about it. THF (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Worse in what respect? Did I not address the specific complaints I mentioned? Are there other specific complaints that I did not address? Is there any sentence not about Timmons? Yes, sort of: the last sentence is just about the memos, which is after all the topic of the paragraph, serves to say what these memos are and how we know about them. Thanks for not saying SYN and COATRACK again. I'm listening if you can point out any actual problems, or if you have any improvements you'd like to propose. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what are you referring to when you say "As you now finally acknowledge, this has nothing to do with Timmons, and doesn't belong in the Timmons article." Are you confusing me with Collect? Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I like the idea of removing The Nation reference, what does all of this have to do with Timmons? This background info belongs in the bio of Nixon, Lennon, or Thurmond, not Timmons. He simply signed a memo -- a completely menial and uneventful office procedure that the Timmons performed thousands of times. Rtally3 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a section on each and every Timmons memo? Collect (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a paragraph on every Timmons memo that has been reproduced or discussed in multiple books would be a reasonable goal. Agree? Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "multiple books" are not fully independent sources here -- and so it fails quickly. As you admitted, Timmons had essentially nothing to do with the Lennon deportation. Collect (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys smoking? THF doesn't answer when I ask what he means by "you now finally acknowledge", and now you say "As you admitted". Will you be willing to point out what you're referring to? And I'm not sure what you have in mind about "fully independent" sources; the memos were discovered by Wiener's FOIA request; are you thinking we need sources that know about them by some other route? Actually, we do have one other, which is the memo to Mitchel that's reproduced in the Rolling Stone, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums." It remains unclear which of them forwarded their memo to the FBI or the INS, but Timmons's copy seems to have ended up in the FBI files, and from there became known to us. What other Timmons memos are you thinking we need to write about? Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose everybody to take a break from editing this article for a few months. The current version of that paragraph can stay, because now it appears to be a compromise: one side wants to remove the paragraph completely and the other to expand it. If there are any suggestions about edits to other parts of the article I am ready to implement them if there is a consensus. Ruslik (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, THF called it a compromise when he wrote it, while you had me blocked after Collect's 4 reverts, but it's not so simple, since nobody here actually supports featuring the opinion of Jon Wiener. I suspect you're telling me that I've been trying too hard to work this out; I'll think about it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the nature of the edits, Dick. As for casting stones, I fear that the glass will break on you <g>. Recall NPA, and AGF before posting. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe everyone is comfortable removing the opinion of John Weiner in the 4th paragraph of the Richard Nixon section. Can we please have this removed? I am also curious how we decide whether to remove the entire section on Lennon. It doesn't appear as if there will be a consensus, and while I know that voting is not a preferred method, I don't see any other viable solution. Rtally3 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Can we all agree on going back for now to the "Version E" above, the shortest one without the opinion? Or propose some other previous version. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If it would end this, I can accept a variant of E that isn't in the passive tense voice and is more accurate: "Thurmond sent a memo to Attorney General Mitchell and to Timmons written by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee recommending deportation of John Lennon; Timmons sent a two-sentence memo a month later to Thurmond to let Thurmond know that the INS had issued a deportation order." Of course to state that accurately then begs the question why it's in the article at all. THF (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that more accurate than version E? And why are you thinking you get to use this opportunity to write a new version that includes words designed to minimize the importance of the topic? Why not just quote the two sentences instead of saying "two-sentence memo"? And I'm not sure what you mean by questioning whether it belongs in the article at all; is it WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Oh, and passive is a voice, not a tense. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more accurate because (1) it doesn't falsely imply that Thurmond sent his memo only to Timmons; (2) it correctly identifies the source of the deportation recommendation as coming from the staff of a bipartisan committee controlled by Democrats rather than from a partisan Republican politician; and (3) it doesn't exaggerate the role of Timmons's memo to Thurmond. Forgive the slip of the tongue re passive voice. WP:WEIGHT is the issue: why is a two-sentence memo that has nothing to do with anything in the article at all? It's only by falsely exaggerating its importance (as Version E does) that it seems like it should be in the article. But you know all this already, as you've forced me to repeat it multiple times. THF (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I can find no evidence on this talk page that you've previously had expressed any problem with (1) an implication "that Thurmond sent his memo only to Timmons" (actually, it's made clear in the last footnote that that's not the case); nor (2) any evidence that you previously mentioned the "deportation recommendation as coming from the staff of a bipartisan committee"; nor (3) do I see anyone but Rtally3 using words like "exaggerate" with respect to Timmons's role (and that was with respect to a version that said his role was "Timmons responded a month later, informing Thurmond that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon," which sounds not so different from yours, except that you point out how few sentences the memo had and you abbreviated INS. So thank you for providing these specifics; the more we know about what the objections are, the more likely we'll be able to come to an understanding.

Also, your interpretation of the attached memo doesn't look right to me; did you even read it? I see no evidence for your OR suggestion that the source of the deportation recommendation was the staff of that committee. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another source

Here's another source that helps one understand the historic focus around this deportation attempt and the memos that document its origin: [2].

In some ways, it's not shocking that the government would declare war on rank-and-file leftists. But the government also went to war against John Lennon. His political activity caught the attention of the rouges in government who did not want any more messiahs in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr. and other slain leaders who could have made a difference. Lennon was maybe the greatest rocker we ever had, and if the Beatles magic could extent to leftist political activism, who knows where his influence could take us?
Lennon was a British national living in New York. In the midst of his high-profile activism, Sen. Strom Thurmond tipped off the White House to the possibility that the government could terminate his visa and ship him back the England as a "strategy counter-measure." In a memo given to Thurmond, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee staff advised that leftist activist leaders wanted to use Lennon for political rallies/rock concerts to promote the anti-war cause, stimulate voter registration and recruit protesters for the 1972 political convention in San Diego, when Nixon would kick off his re-election campaign.
Strom Thurmond's tip-off got results. In a memo dated March 6, 1972, one of Nixon's assistants wrote that "in connection with your previous inquiry concerning the former member of the Beatles, John Lennon, I thought you would be interested in learning that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has served notice on him that he is to leave this country no later than March 15. You may be assured the information you previously furnished has been appropriately noted."
Think about this for a minute. Richard Milhous Nixon took the oath of office to faithfully execute the Constitution and ensure that the laws were faithfully executed. Then this paranoid animal went on to destroy constitutional freedoms and attempt to throw a cultural icon out of the country because of his political views. Imagine how far this kind of surveillance and harassment went. If they could do it to Lennon, they could do it to anyone.

They don't refer to Willaim E. Timmons by name at all, just as "one of Nixon's assistants"; this is typical, and is why I referred to him in the article that way, saying "in his role as assistant to the President" or something to that effect. They do quote his words, though, and do explain once more that this was a matter of considerable interest not just to historians but to the nation. I'm not saying we need to repeat their opinion that Nixon was a "paranoid animal", but it would be disingenuous to pretend that a good portion of the country didn't think this stuff was significant; since the Timmons memo is probably the only concrete documentation of the White House doing anything against Lennon, it has naturally attracted a lot of attention.

By the way, I knew nothing about Timmons, the deportation attempt, or any of this until I started looking in books to see what's published about Timmons, in my effort to help bring the article out of the sludgy mess it started in. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is now resorting to a blog published by PlanetWaves Astrology that doesn't even mention Timmons to support his BLP violations. Which says it all. THF (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "resorting" to it, I'm saying it's one more source to help you understand that these memos of 37 years ago were noticed. And I already pointed out it doesn't state his name, but does quote his words. And are you saying this organization Planet Waves, Inc. and author Steve Bergstein are not a reliable source for such opinions? Possibly you're right; I hadn't noticed that it's a blog, and I'm not familiar with the author, but I wouldn't dismiss him for having his articles on an astrology-related site. Apparently he's a real person, as another page on a different site says "Steve Bergstein is our music editor. When he's not busy burning compilation CDs for his friends, he is a civil rights lawyer who lives in New Paltz, NY. Email: PsychSound@gmail.com." So I think he's probably OK for his opinion on civil rights issues and music issues, and that's why he was writing about the Lennon deportation attempt. No?

And are you now asserting BLP violation? This is new, right, because before you only said "The quoted Wiener opinion is a questionable source...Severe BLP problem" (though you had previously said "Because we have credited it to Wiener, there's not a BLP issue") and I keep agreeing we want to get rid of that opinion. So what BLP issue are you bringing up now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am noticing a trend whereby, when confronted with citations to policy that demonstrate indisputably that his proposed addition doesn't belong, Lyon repeatedly tries to change the subject into a meta-discussion over whether he understood that the argument had been made several weeks ago. As for the blog post in question, I see no evidence that Bergstein did anything but parrot Wiener's Nation op-ed; he certainly evinces no understanding of the underlying memos or the context in which they were written or anything beyond what Wiener wrote in the Nation. And we've already explored in detail why the Nation opinion is worthless, and a blog post simply repeating what Wiener said in the Nation doesn't bootstrap the BLP violation into a non-violation. THF (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how Bertstein's "blog post simply repeating what Wiener said in the Nation" was published 2 years before Wiener's article. Cut the nonsense, THF. I don't really care what you say about me; it just makes it more clear that you have no on-topic points. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to comment on the editor (THF mentions Lyon) instead of commenting on the edits. Please stop violating this core policy of Wikipedia, THF, or i will report you to Wikiquette Alerts, thank you. Also, you have no authority to dismiss The Nation nor any other Reliable Source, no matter how much you dislike their reports. They are a reputable news magazine, used as a reliable source in countless other places in this Wikipedia, there is no problem using them here. In fact, a BLP needs citations from sources which are as Verifiable and Reliable as the Nation. And it also doesn't matter if you don't like Steve Bergstein's blog post, nobody is trying to put the Bergstein info into the Timmons article, it's just an example of how the memos were relevant and notable and therefore it is not Original Research to mention them, clearly Bergstein has done more "Original Research" whereas Dicklyon is merely paraphrasing, as a good editor should. Further abuse of this page will not be tolerated, please consider your actions carefully and avoid returning to such unCivil comments. Thank you. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TD314, you're really going to report me to WQA because I'm complaining that Lyon is violating WP:TALK and WP:TEDIOUS? It'll be quite apparent that you've filed such a frivolous claim in retaliation for my pointing out on COIN that you violated CIVIL so egregiously that an admin noticed my diffs and you got yourself blocked for a week, and you'll just get yourself blocked for WP:HARASS. Please stop following me to other pages. THF (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see -- non-RS and does not use Timmons' name at all. And it is a "source"? Nope. And Tele -- see [3] [4] etc. And I would suggest that the attack in in the immediately prior post to mine. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or does this excerpt not bring anything new to the table at all? What a waste of time. Rtally3 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing new, just one more source to support the interpretation that these memos have been widely regarded as important. Here are some more: [5] [6] Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nixonland" has nothing more than any other source you have used. Perlstein is well-knwon on the left (Amazon review, not my opinion), and still gets in the single mention of Timmons in an 881 page tome. Your second cite is just the Google search which adds, in point of fact, not a single source to your list -- and shows that out of ALL the books indexed, only 5 have "memos Lennon Timmons" including ones you already cited <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Collect, all the info has been cited before; nothing new, just two more books that discuss these same memos including mentioning Timmons, indicating the kind of attention that they gotten the press over the years; books, magazines, blogs, etc., not all of which would qualify as reliable sources, but enough will. Only five books combine those three words on one page – you take that as evidence that it's not worth mentioning? Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

With a slightly modified search you get more books and a different snippet for Fawcett; combining the snippets yields

On Feb. 4, 1972, Senator Thurmond wrote to John Mitchell attaching the memo. "This appears to me to be an important matter, and I think it would be well for it to be considered at the highest level," he wrote. "As I can see many headaches might be avoided if apppropropriate action be taken in time." Handwritten at the bottom was this afterthought: "I also sent Bill Timmons [a White aide] a copy of the memorandum." ... They did, and the INS moved to revoke John's visa because of the 1968 drug arrest in England. Farrell's associate commissioner, James Greene, called New York INS district director, Sol Marks, on March 2, 1972, and told him to "immediately revoke the voluntary departure granted to John Lennon and his wife." He further directed Marks to disapprove Lennon's preliminary application to remain ...

This could be useful, it does also support the idea that Timmons was mentioned by a third party with respect to the memo even before Wiener found his memos via the FOIA request (Fawcett's book was 1980, so could only draw on the single memo to Mitchell that we see in the Rolling Stone article); so I was wrong, Collect, there actually is something new here; thanks for poking. I'll see if I can get a copy of the book and make sure we use the source correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that he's just quoting (or reproducing) the Rolling Stone artilce by Flippo, verbatim. I just noticed it has all this same text in the fourth (right-most) column.

Wow. Not. No new sources. No new information. And John Mitchell's article is not what we are editing. Collect (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. Jayen466 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you drop in from time to time to "agree with Collect", but you never clarify why or exactly what you agree to, or follow up on fruitful discussion directions, such as my request for clarification at the end of the "third opinion" section above. I agree with some of your main points, like that we should not go beyond sources that mention Timmons in writing this paragraph; but you're acting like we're doing so when we're not. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is just nothing of substance in the sources. All we know is Timmons wrote a memo advising Thurmond of action taken. The man surely wrote thousands of memos as part of his job. I find it exceedingly odd that this issue is being pushed here again and again and again and again. There is nothing of substance, and until there is, any attempt to expand on what several editors have told us is the appropriate amount of space to give to this in this BLP is WP:COATRACKING. I can already say that this is the most persistent and odd attempt at coatracking a BLP against clear consensus that I personally have ever come across here in this project. Please stop it. Jayen466 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use the new book sources that mention Timmons and his Lennon memos this way:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security Subcommitte associated Lennon with the Chicago Seven and noted that "This group has been strong advocates of the program to 'dump Nixon';" the memo reported a confidential source who "felt that if Lennon's visa is terminated it would be a strategy counter-measure" but also urged caution to avoid alienating "the so-called 18-year old vote." Thurmond told Timmons that "many headaches would be avoided if appropriate action were taken." Timmons responded to Thurmond on March 6, 1972, indicating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was initially made public when another copy of Thurmond's memo, addressed to attorney general John Mitchell, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums [sic]", had been made public in 1975 and discussed in a book in 1980. Timmons's response to Thurmond remained unknown until it was discovered by a Freedom of Information Act request by Jon Wiener. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "new" sources, ain't. The material which was UNDUE is still UNDUE. What we have as fact is: "Thurmond sent a memo to Timmons about Lennon. Timmons answered a month later saying the INS had issued a deportation order." That is the sum and substance of FACT. Collect (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NO. Jayen466 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, what the last sentence says is not in the cited source, and furthermore it seems to be wrong, at least according to the Nation, which confidently states "The Thurmond-Timmons documents were first published in Rolling Stone, July 31, 1975." Jayen466 14:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean by you dropping in but not following up; I pointed out last time you pointed that out that it was incorrect and had already been discussed. See #The_Lennon_memos. And why do you say it's undue weight? The weight comes only from adding a bit of detail from the many book sources on this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Still object, and resent the TEDIOUS trolling. It's amazing that Lyon is responding to the WEIGHT and COATRACK and BLP problem by hanging even more on the coatrack. It's mysterious to me why he is wasting so much effort on an article about a marginal player in the dispute when there isn't even an article about the dispute in Wikipedia. Create the lengthy article about the dispute, and then you can add a See also here. THF (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What dispute? Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution to the edit-warring over this article

Just topic-ban the edit warriors. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Better yet -- why not read the discussions above and make decisions about consensus? Collect (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Because my goal is to improve Wikipedia. Engaging in pointless arguments won't further that goal. Dlabtot (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeking to improve articles is the single best way to improve WP. Lots of opportunity for sure. Collect (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Jayen pointed out (discussion on his talk page) that the sources don't explicitly say that these particular memos we're discussing were found as a result of Wiener's FOIA request; checking the sources, I have to admit that's so, even though multiple sources do discuss them in the context of that FOIA request and subsequent suit. I even got a few new sources and looked, but no explicit confirmation is found. So, let's take that bit out. Then I propose we move forward with:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee associated Lennon with the Chicago Seven and noted that "This group has been strong advocates of the program to 'dump Nixon'." Thurmond told Timmons that "many headaches would be avoided if appropriate action were taken." Timmons responded to Thurmond on March 6, 1972, indicating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was illustrated by these memos, which were published in facsimile in 1975 and 2000.

If there's anything else in here that's not supported by a single source without synthesis, point it out, and let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. That looks better. Jayen466 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lacking other comments after nearly a whole day of unprotection and this proposal, I'll go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Collected references from all versions, no attempt to merge them here

(leave this section at the bottom)